3 ms·

It's interesting that (according to this article), while 20% of marine debris globally is fishing gear, 46% of this sample was from fishing sources. There is on

It's interesting that (according to this article), while 20% of marine debris globally is fishing gear, 46% of this sample was from fishing sources. There is one source quoted as saying that the study is based on "limited surveys", but the study also apparently took 752 surface trawls (which, to my layman's ear, sounds like a lot). Would the concern be not about the number of samples, but the type of samples? Perhaps fishing gear is more inclined to float to the top where the trawls were taken, or more gear is abandoned in a location that is more likely to float to the patch?

trophycase 9y ago
Perhaps it can be explained by the location of the patch and where fishing boats typically go? I would imagine other types of garbage may have a coastal bias?
dmurray 9y ago
> Perhaps fishing gear is more inclined to float to the top where the trawls were taken Virtually everything non-living either floats or sinks in water. There isn't a major accumulation of debris with exactly the same density as ocean water that follows this garbage patch 100 metres lower.
- nmca 9y ago
  Have you ever shaken a tube full of sand containing a marble?